← Library
Bombay High CourtRPW/129/2016disposed off

State Institute Of Educational Technology (Balchitrawani) Through Administrative Officer And ORS v. Mr. Ulhas Shankar Godse And ORS

2016-08-29Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka2 pages

kvm 1/2 10-RPWST18930.16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 18930 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1590 OF 2016 State Institute of Educational Technology (Balchitrawani) & Ors.

..... Petitioners

VERSUS

Ulhas Shankar Godse & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate, i/b. State Government Pleader for the Petitioners. Mr.S.S.Shah for Respondent nos. 1 to 16.

CORAM :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATE :

29th AUGUST, 2016 P.C.

Not on board. Taken on board.

2.

Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel for the review petitioners on instruction from Mr.B.K.Dahiphale, Administrative Officer, Balchintravani, Pune states that the review petitioners will comply with the order passed by this court dated 14th March, 2016. He states that 50% of the amount directed to be paid by the Industrial Court, Pune in Complaint (ULP) No.242 of 2015 dated 3rd December, 2015 would be paid to the respondents within four weeks from today. He further states that the remaining amount would be paid within eight weeks from today. The statement is accepted.

3.

In view of the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners, this review petition does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

kvm 2/2 10-RPWST18930.16 4.

In view of the statement made by the learned senior counsel for the review petitioners, Mr.Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that though the respondents have filed the proceedings for taking action against the petitioners under the provisions of MRTU & PULP Act, the respondents would not pursue the said proceedings for a period of ten weeks from today and if payment is made by the review petitioners as stated aforesaid within the time prescribed, his clients would withdraw the contempt proceedings. Statement made by the learned counsel is accepted.

5.

It is made clear that the order passed in this review petition shall not be used as a precedent in any other proceedings to which the review petitioners are parties. 6.

Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. No order as to costs. [R.D. DHANUKA, J.]